Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Voters

42. You may not vote on this poll

Yes for violent and or lethal force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

Unless you have irrefutable evidence and happen to get lucky with a good judge I would never take those chances... just look at the Garner case... the cop killed Garner and...? Nothing.

Wrong direction. Garner would have had to be the one to take the issue to court, for how he was treated. He would have faced his day in court for any charges they brought against him, and could have won if they really had no evidence against him, as many are trying to claim is the case.

Would you rather take the chance as Garner and many, many others did, resisting the arrest by the police and ending up hurt or dead? I'm sure some would say "yes" just so that they can claim some crap about how badly the police are treating them even though they aren't being treated wrongly. Fight it in court, not with the police. That simple. And you are a whole lot less likely to end up dead fighting it in court than fighting it on the street, with the cop.

In fact, considering the conviction rate here in the US, you actually stand a much better chance in the court room, particularly in the areas where the most recently incidents have taken place, than fighting the cop on the street. Maybe if the NAACP lawyers would take up the incidents where the people didn't fight the police, but rather took their issues to court, they would see much more support for their side.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Wrong direction. Garner would have had to be the one to take the issue to court, for how he was treated. He would have faced his day in court for any charges they brought against him, and could have won if they really had no evidence against him, as many are trying to claim is the case.

Would you rather take the chance as Garner and many, many others did, resisting the arrest by the police and ending up hurt or dead? I'm sure some would say "yes" just so that they can claim some crap about how badly the police are treating them even though they aren't being treated wrongly. Fight it in court, not with the police. That simple. And you are a whole lot less likely to end up dead fighting it in court than fighting it on the street, with the cop.

In fact, considering the conviction rate here in the US, you actually stand a much better chance in the court room, particularly in the areas where the most recently incidents have taken place, than fighting the cop on the street. Maybe if the NAACP lawyers would take up the incidents where the people didn't fight the police, but rather took their issues to court, they would see much more support for their side.

My point was that even with over whelming evidence against the cop the cop was not charged with any wrong doing... going to court against the cop is folly.

Originally Posted by Bucky

I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

My point was that even with over whelming evidence against the cop the cop was not charged with any wrong doing... going to court against the cop is folly.

Overwhelming evidence against which cop? The one in the Garner case? There was easily both questionable actions from the cop but also some resistance by Garner, which was what led to the confrontation. Had Garner been cooperating fully with the police, and still been taken down that way, there would have been no question about the cops being wrong. However, Garner wasn't cooperating and even said he wasn't going to in the video. That is resistance. It is exactly what I am talking about. You fight back in court, not with the cops, even if it is just passive resistance or attempts at it.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

I voted no.

I watched a video some time back of an arrest made by UK police. The suspect I believe was drunk and being a bit rowdy in public but not violent. When the policeman approached him and began searching his person the suspect pulls out a dildo and playfully slaps the policeman on the arm very lightly in a light hearted fashion. The policeman's response was to take the dildo out of his hand and sit it on the ground so he could continue searching the suspect. The arrest was made without any escalation.

While I was watching the video I remember thinking that it is a good thing that he was not in America that our police would likely have slammed his face into the concrete and dog piled him for assaulting a police officer with a weapon. My point being that some of our police, to many, seem to often over react and use violence as a first response to a situation, a situation that could just as easily be handled without the use of violence.

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by Goshin

Now, as to an overenthusiastic cop just up and beating the crap out of you "for no reason".... well that would be rare but I'm not going to say Never.

If you want to live and not go to prison, the smartest thing to do is cover your head with your arms, curl up in a ball, and don't fight. Afterward, contact your lawyer and file charges for police brutality and sue the PD. I know that isn't a very satisfactory answer but it is the truth... fighting the police generally isn't going to lead to any outcome you are going to enjoy.

Now reallio trulio, it was his fault. He was going too fast w/out lights or siren... probably on his way home.

But it didn't matter. He was scared and pissed off and determined to take it out on me. He was visibly angry, verbally hostile, and I could tell he was looking for an excuse to slam me across the hood and put the cuffs on. He searched my truck without asking permission and did his best to verbally provoke me into doing something rash.

I stayed calm, complied with all lawful orders, and was very careful to keep my hands in view and not do anything that could be construed as provocative.

In the end he let me go without a ticket... probably because he knew he'd get slammed when the recorder in his cruiser revealed he was speeding without lights or siren. He gave me a bad ten minutes by the roadside though.

I wasn't happy about it. It was stressful and nerve wracking and it wasn't fair.

But I'm still here. I'm not shot dead or in prison.

If I'd reacted to his provocation in any way that gave him half an excuse, that might not be so.

Rare? YouTube is packed with such videos - and for ever video there are at least 100 times no video was running.

And what are you talking about curling you and covering your head? The police are shouting - if they know a video is running - "give me your arm! give me your arm! Stop resisting! Stop resisting! Stop trying to take my gun! You're resisting!!" while having you pinned to the ground slugging, clubbing and tasering you in the face and genitals as fast as they can.

Curling up and covering your face would be considered "resisting" by at least nearly half the members of the forum, for which the police then have no choice but to put at least 500 pounds on your chest, taser you at least 50 times - mostly in the face - and hit you with fists or a club at least 50 times in the face too. Trying to prevent being beaten to death is "resisting" - and resisting is illegal. Usually, this is fat, shaved head police doing this.

Don't you read the messages people are posting? Never look at the videos?

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by Baralis

I voted no.

I watched a video some time back of an arrest made by UK police. The suspect I believe was drunk and being a bit rowdy in public but not violent. When the policeman approached him and began searching his person the suspect pulls out a dildo and playfully slaps the policeman on the arm very lightly in a light hearted fashion. The policeman's response was to take the dildo out of his hand and sit it on the ground so he could continue searching the suspect. The arrest was made without any escalation.

While I was watching the video I remember thinking that it is a good thing that he was not in America that our police would likely have slammed his face into the concrete and dog piled him for assaulting a police officer with a weapon. My point being that some of our police, to many, seem to often over react and use violence as a first response to a situation, a situation that could just as easily be handled without the use of violence.

Very well said. Police seem to want to escalate a situation when it can be defused. Poor training has LEO's thinking that all people they encounter are terrorist.

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Overwhelming evidence against which cop? The one in the Garner case? There was easily both questionable actions from the cop but also some resistance by Garner, which was what led to the confrontation. Had Garner been cooperating fully with the police, and still been taken down that way, there would have been no question about the cops being wrong. However, Garner wasn't cooperating and even said he wasn't going to in the video. That is resistance. It is exactly what I am talking about. You fight back in court, not with the cops, even if it is just passive resistance or attempts at it.

I understand your view. Everyone should just go to jail saying nothing. Maybe, in weeks, months or a year it might be decided you shouldn't have ever been in jail. You view of being totally submissive to everyone about everything - really best never go outside to begin with - probably is safest.

If everyone would just agree they should go to jail there would be no problem... except for those instances where police shoot, beat or beat to death someone anyway.

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by Lakeside

Very well said. Police seem to want to escalate a situation when it can be defused. Poor training has LEO's thinking that all people they encounter are terrorist.

Most departments train police that their safety is everything - and everyone else is exactly nobody by comparison. Dead people and people beating into unconsciousness aren't a danger, therefore the logic is to kill or massively assault anyone who might possibly poise a danger. That is safest for the officer.

Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Originally Posted by joko104

Most departments train police that their safety is everything - and everyone else is exactly nobody by comparison. Dead people and people beating into unconsciousness aren't a danger, therefore the logic is to kill or massively assault anyone who might possibly poise a danger. That is safest for the officer.

Yeah, I have seen videos where LEO's tell people to put their phones or cameras down because they look like or could be used as a weapon. If a grown man is afraid of a cell phone or camera he does not need to be a cop. The world needs ditch diggers also.